PERSPECTIVES
The Historical Dimension of Gulf Crisis
THE year 1990 that heral-ded a thaw in East-Westrelations, had been in many ways a remarkable time - time of high hopes but great uncertainty. In the fall of the year we - an odd six dozen peace researchers from almost an equal number of countries - met and huddled for a couple of days in Sloss Hunigen, a medieval castle outside Berne to exchange views on how would be the future shape of things in security realm.
However, frustrating the objectives of the meet organised by Swiss Peace Foundation the Gulf crisis that erupted a month earlier overtook the scheduled agenda. Most speakers displayed optimism that a war of retaliation against Iraq would be the last thing to happen. After all, the new era had just begun - an era of reconciliation, understanding and cooperation in the international relations - at the 'end of the history'. Iraq would withdraw from Kuwait either voluntarily or be made to do so diplomatically.
But an unusual perspective came from Johan Galtung - an intellectual giant in his own right. After his grand sweep of the history and enclopaedic details of the past he asserted that to fight Iraq would be a historical imperative for America. Because there had to be a follow up of the West's obsession to intervene in the Arab-Islamic worlds ever since the days of the Crusades. The European countries waged nine Crusades against Arab-Islamic forces for two hundred years between 1095-1291. They failed to recover the holy city of Jerusalem - their main objective - but with the Crusades there grew an idea of 'Christendom', the world of Christianity in Europe as opposed to 'Moslem South' in West Asia and North Africa.
Over the centuries the relationship between the two forces and their perception of each-other hardly changed. The only thing that changed was the gradual decline of Islamic civilisation and corresponding rise of Christendom in Europe as rival civilisation. America and Australia did not exist at that time but they have inherited their obsessive oppositions to Islam from their forefathers in Europe. Even today 'Moslem South' is a dominant factor in the security calculus of the West while the Muslim countries, notably the Arabs, remain embittered with piled-up hatred against the West for being victimised by its past aggression, conquests and treacheries. The West also never forgot the ignominy of its defeat in the hands of Muslims in the Middle Ages.
True to the prophecy of Galtung the war did break out over Gulf crisis in early 1991 although Baghdad that bore the brunt of Desert Storm was not Jerusalem; neither Saddam was in any way Sultan Salahuddin. But they - wrongly or rightly - represented much of the symbols of those place and personality. Baghdad was the great seat of Islamic civilisation for many centuries since Caliph Al-Mansoor made it the capital of Arab empire in 752 AD and remained unrivalled as the world's metropolitan centre till the invasion of the Mongols in 1258. And Saddam, in spite of his many vices, did possess something that the Arabs passionately nourish in their heart, the courage to defy the West.
It was not thus surprising that the West's ire fell on the both although Saddam's foolish occupation of Kuwait gave a golden opportunity to the US and its allies to cut the increasing military prowess of Iraq to size. But there was an obvious similarity in the strategy and general line-up of forces between Halaku Khan and Bush-Schwarzkopf in the massacre of Baghdad.
Halaku Khan destroyed Baghdad in 1258 when half a million of its population were killed. The city was literally reduced to ashes from which it rose like a Phoenix and continued to grow even when it was ravaged in turn by the Mongols, Persians and the Turks.
Before the Gulf War it could remind one of the Baghdad of old, of Arabian Nights, of its halcyon days as prosperous capital of the Arab world. The Greeks fondly called the country 'Mesopotamia' - 'the land between two rivers', which indeed nourished the fertile soil of Iraq with their perennial flows. With the world's fourth largest oil reserve Iraq had been a country of abundance enjoying the highest standard of living in Middle East by early '80s. The country was chosen to be the target for the US-led coalition forces of 27 nations who battered it with 1,06,000 tons of bombs carried by over 3000 war planes within 43 days. Vietnam received only 6,800 tons of bombs over eight and half years. Look at the vendetta, the ruthlessness and the arrogance! But why?
Because the West argued that Iraq invaded and occupied neighbouring Kuwait in August 1990. What was about the United States assaulting with force on Panama to install a government of its liking only a few months ago in December 1989? Panama was created as a 'Canal Republic of Columbia' by the US in 1903 only four months after Britain had created Kuwait as an oil protectorate out of the Basra Province of Iraqi part of Ottoman empire. Thus everywhere these imperialists have sown the seeds of irredentism of which Iraqi aggression was a manifest expression.
The Desert Storm also could not destroy Baghdad. Notwithstanding a draconian sanction Baghdad leapt back to life within a year and looked more like a bustling European city. Neons blinked astride its six-lane expressways connecting Baghdad with the neighbouring countries - a far cry from the death-stricken and shell-shocked city of just years ago. The suburban city of Mansoor wore festive ambiance once again. Shops displayed expensive European designer cloths, electronics, perfumes and gourmet food. Iraqis strolled around, leaving exotic fragrances wafting in their wake. Nothing on the streets - the shiny cars, new building and communication towers, multi-lane bridges - resembled the city of ruin after the Desert Storm.
A surprising resilience marked the defiant revival of Iraq while a scandalous weapon inspection programme by UNSCOM went on for long seven and half years under the cover of a pervasive sanction - obviously to wear the Iraqis out. There was a measure of chivalry when Halaku massacred five lakh inhabitants of Baghdad eight hundred years ago. His nomadic hoards threw the gauntlet before engaging them in the encounter.
But in recent Anglo-American 'invasion' of Baghdad the attackers sneaked into its backyard and from the safety and comfort of a aircraft carrier calibrated their Tomahawk, and smart bombs on a reluctant enemy. But within days the life in Baghdad went by in its usual way. Nevertheless, the US has been able to kill as many as 15 lakh people in Iraq as a result of crippling sanctions imposed since 1991.
But can the West destroy Baghdad so long it is the symbol of a faith, a people and its resolve to stand up against injustice and immorality of historic dimension? The West hardly has any problem either with Iraq or Saddam Hussein if they are in conformity with western designs. It itself propped up Saddam and supported him morally and materially as long as he served the purposes of the US and her allies in twisting Iran, their principal adversary, in the '80s. They felt uncomfortable once Saddam hit at western interest by targeting Israel - their strategic outpost in the Middle East.
Moreover, the West - particularly the US, lacks the moral authority to impose its wish on Iraq because she has since jettisoned that authority at least in the Middle East where she unabashedly subsidises Israeli conquests and pillage without restraint. That she has done this and continues to do so and, at the same time, arrogates for herself the right to speak of international law and justice to the Arabs while punishing the entire population of Iraq is nothing short of a hypocrisy of its kind.
The war between Iraq and the US is not just another conflict. It is the conflict of a historical dimension which needs to be understood to fathom its complexity.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments